There is a lot of text written and voice recorded over what type safety is good for. It's reasonable to disagree, but to "honestly don't get" what the point of it is seems kinda strange. Like you haven't really looked into it.
There is a lot of text written and voice recorded over what type safety is good for. It's reasonable to disagree, but to "honestly don't get" what the point of it is seems kinda strange. Like you haven't really looked into it.
It's quite annoying IMO. Some of the things it can be infer are reasonably impressive but then that gets balanced out with having to write out a lot of crap that something a bit more HM-like would be able to nail immediately (rather than just "Any!? Fuck you").
That and the refusal to add other value-adds (despite being a compiler in all but name) hobbles the union types and so on.
Smalltalk is type safe & not statically checked.
page 263 "Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation"
[pdf] https://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/2007-0...
It's generally better to do proper micro-services.
Type safety is the inferior way of doing it where you get hit with a double whammy of long compile times and extreme code verbosity.
Network communications are the most tedious and annoying part of programming for me because of the validation of the request body and checking that it has all the fields needed.
Microservices only increase the amount of documentation needed. I would prefer to lessen the amount of documentation by letting the compiler/code do the work instead.
It's like British tanks in WW2, your system is composed out of standard parts. Not necessary the best, but standard parts and that's what tends to be important.